W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > June 2018

Re: New requirements on github?

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 23:58:12 +0200
To: "public-dxwg-wg@w3.org" <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8a864cf4-bd06-6756-a158-58c55a142880@few.vu.nl>
Hi Nick,

Thanks for the explanation. And if you're asking for a discussion on the next call, then I'm going to prepare for it by throwing my thoughts right now. Sorry, long email coming :-)

Honestly I am not sure it is productive to add another moving target/copy to look at right now. At least I will try not to look at them until we have finished the discussion on Google doc.
But if you feel that this is helping you, and you can manage to keep them aligned and that by the time we declare the work on GDoc finished, then we have a clean list of requirements on github, then I certainly cannot raise an objection to your doing it! As long as it's your space to keep track of things, and not a disconnected discussion.

I'm not saying the Google doc is perfect. I have struggled myself a lot, and I have again asked one very naive question in the last call about it. If you have questions like the ones you've asked, you should feel free to ask them. I may be happy to find a partner to struggle my way into understanding it myself, and keep things aligned. Before the last call, I've tried to check that everything was synchronized between the different parts of it and with the resolutions of our calls (not the conneg one as I wasn't into it), and it was not easy. I can also see that Karen is doing a lot, and some other people including you try to chime in, and this is not easy for anyone.

But for all the imperfections of our Google doc, I find it flexible and fit for our discussion. I have found the possibility to comment and make suggestions both on the requirements and the use cases (without having to bother the editors to make changes that would be retracted the week after) very powerful. Github would allow this, but the decoupling of the requirements and use cases makes it hard to follow. Keeping and following the links between dozens of issues that would be constantly changing and being commented is a challenge.

In fact I have found the github-based discussion too overwhelming. There are too many things happening at once. For me the size of the DCAT requirements manageable, the size of the new and the old profile requirements too, but all at the same time make me feel lost... I think it's the avalanche of emails to read if one wants to follow everything. Having DCAT on github and Profiles on GDoc is friendlier to my mailbox and my brain.

Finally there is something strange: github seems to attract people who are not in our working group, like this Andreas Kuckartz who left a mysterious comment on one of your new requirements:
This is questionable for two reasons (one perhaps less good than the other, arguably):
- W3C WG discussions are not open to everyone at anytime
- it could be that we're luring external people into discussing completely unstable results, while they could maybe give feedback on deliverables we're more interested to get feedback on.



On 28/06/18 18:56, Car, Nicholas (L&W, Dutton Park) wrote:
> Hi Antoine,
> I’m gearing up to ensuring we can associate profile use cases and requirements with sections in guidance and other documents. I found it impossible in the Google Doc to know where things are up to (what do the colours mean?, is the first list or the re-ordered list the point of truth?, does re-wording happen online or in comments, or sub bullet points?) and in the last Plenary there was an issue of edit loss for a profile requirement rewording from the previous profileneg meeting. So I created an Issue for each requirement to emulate the DCAT group’s work in using a proper issue tracker.
> Every Requirement I could judge to be one in the Google Doc is there and labeled as best as I could understand their categorisation and status. I’ve put links to category-based listings of the issues at the top of the Google Doc as well as a link from each individual Requirement to its GitHub Issue in too.
> I’ve also added an item in for the next Plenary’s agenda to discuss officially moving from the Google Doc to GitHub Issues.
> Nick
> *Nicholas Car*
> /Senior Experimental Scientist/
> CSIRO Land & Water
> E nicholas.car@csiro.au <mailto:nicholas.car@csiro.au> M 0477 560 177 <tel:0477%20560%20177> P 07 3833 5632
> Dutton Park, QLD, Australia
> On 28 Jun 2018, at 9:51 pm, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I saw that yesterday a flurry of new github issues has been created about the requirements we're discussing on the google docs. This includes requirements that have not been approved yet, like
>> https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/269
>> which includes a comment from me "derived from the previous one: it's rather trivial, but one never knows..." which was already a bit weird but now becomes downward irrelevant unless we put a link to the 'previous one' in github.
>> Am I missing something? Has it been decided that the discussion was going to happen on github for these requirements that used to be on the Google Doc?
>> I'm sorry but I'm afraid I won't have the bandwidth to follow yet another discussion area, especially as each space require verification. I already found that it's hard to keep up between some re-wording agreed in the calls and the wording in the Google doc, I can't imagine having the group to control another space...
>> Best,
>> Antoine
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2018 21:58:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:42:04 UTC